Matthew 12:40

[rstrats]

Whenever the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 is brought up in a “discussion� with 6th day crucifixion folks, they frequently argue that it is a Jewish idiom for counting any part of a day as a whole day. I wonder if anyone has documentation that shows that the phrase “x� days and “x�nights was ever used in the first century or before when it absolutely didn’t include at least parts of the “x� days and at least parts of the “x� nights?

[shnarkle]

If you look at the events of the last week of Jesus' life you should see that he went into the tomb on what we would refer to as Wednesday evening.

What events would they be?

The events recorded in your bible beginning six days before the Passover. Start with Luke 19:1-10; Matthew 21:1-7; John 12:1. Mark's account begins in 11:1-7 on the fourth day before the Passover. Record all of the events and see which align with which in each respective account, keeping in mind the days mentioned as well as each time an author states: "the next day". You should have no problem seeing that he is put into the tomb on Wednesday evening which aligns perfectly with his claim to be in the tomb "three days and three nights". The clock starts ticking as the sun is going down on what we would reckon as Wednesday evening, but what they reckoned as Thursday morning, and the "high day" or high Sabbath of the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

[shnarkle]

shnarkle,
re: "No, you're not."

Yes I am. You wrote: "It doesn't make sense to ask if the phrase 'three days and three nights' could have included at least parts of the days and parts of the nights..."

I'm asking for examples to support the assertion that it was common to say that a daytime or a night time would be involved with an event when the event couldn't have included at least a part of the daytime or at least a part of the night time.

I know what you're asking, and my answer couldn't have been more simply stated: There are none. There are no examples. Perhaps you'd prefer to see examples of a square circle? There are none of those either, at least not in the bible.

[marco]

Yes, and no. The whale wasn't a prison for Jonah; it was a literally a tomb just like the literal tomb Christ was buried in. In that they're both tombs.

You are basing your entire argument and grounds for a literal comparison on your idea that Jonah died in the whale. There is no suggestion of this since he seemed to have survived the digestion process, the whale being a stratagem for Jonah's return to God. Inside the whale he managed to compose a fairly lengthy litany, upon the termination of which he was egested.

If you prefer a comparison that breaks down almost immediately, that's your choice.

I don't prefer such a comparison. Since I do not believe Jonah was dead inside the whale - on the basis that corpses don't compose poems - I see the comparison in the logical way I have outlined; Jonah rose up from inside the whale; Jesus rose up from the tomb. The analogy is entirely with the re-emergence from being closed in, one by being swallowed and the other by being buried.

When one has not just multiple points of comparison; but all points of comparison the picture that emerges is inescapable. "Just as Jonah was alive in the whale for three days and three nights so too shall the Son of Man be in the center of the earth three days and three nights" doesn't go very far in supporting a resurrection.

Your parody would be appropriate were we both in agreement that Jonah was buried inside the whale and his corpse was revived on his ejection. It is you who need Jonah to be dead for your interpretation of the analogy; I don't.

Attic Greek was somewhat nuanced.

Yes - the point I was making is not whether this or that interpretation is correct but that the examination of Christ's reported words relies on the exact format of Christ's speech to have been properly recorded, years after the event. We have the same problem with his words on the cross: I say - today you will be with me in Paradise and I say today, you will be with me in Paradise.


All that aside, it seems you've been seduced into accepting poor Jonah died in the whale, making Matthew's comparison more literal than figurative. I have read the account and do not see how you can come to this conclusion.

[shnarkle]

Yes, and no. The whale wasn't a prison for Jonah; it was literally a tomb just like the literal tomb Christ was buried in. In that they're both tombs.

You are basing your entire argument and grounds for a literal comparison on your idea that Jonah died in the whale.

Yep, that sounds about right. I'm not saying that Jonah or Jesus were just euphemistically drowsy while they were passed out.

"out of the belly of hell cried I,..." This word "hell" is the Hebrew word "Sheol" which is "the grave". The usage of this term doesn't lend itself to a place where people lay in repose and compose poems

"The waters compassed me about, even to the soul:..." The waters have penetrated not just to his body, but to his soul. This isn't the type of thing that happens to someone who is just lounging around in the belly of a fish. He's swallowed all the water he can and is now gradually going to take the eternal nap God has provided for him.

" the depth closed me round about, the weeds were wrapped about my head." The imagery here is clearly depicting the weeds as his burial wrappings.

"6 I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever:" Bottom of the mountains forever? Sounds pretty permanent to me.

"yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O Lord my God." How can he bring it up from corruption if he hadn't experienced corruption in the first place?

There is no suggestion of this since he seemed to have survived the digestion process, the whale being a stratagem for Jonah's return to God. Inside the whale he managed to compose a fairly lengthy litany, upon the termination of which he was egested.

There is no reason to believe that the digestion process couldn't have taken place with a corpse in the fish's belly. In point of fact, that is usually the way it works. A dead Jonah in the belly of the fish wouldn't have thwarted God's plan. The fish simply makes his way to the shores of Nineveh with a bad case of acid indigestion. He simply had the fish barf him onto the beach and as the text states "Jonah arose". What do you know, yet another point of correlation.

If you prefer a comparison that breaks down almost immediately, that's your choice.

I don't prefer such a comparison. Since I do not believe Jonah was dead inside the whale - on the basis that corpses don't compose poems

Well, that culture believed that the soul or spirit could loiter in the body for up to three days, and this provides a simple explanation for how his soul composed the poems while his body was making the fish regret getting delivery. It's actually a much better story to have Jonah barfed up onto the beach with a fair amount of stomach acid beginning to exfoliate his water logged skin. He's gotta look like a mess for his insolence against God.

- I see the comparison in the logical way I have outlined; Jonah rose up from inside the whale; Jesus rose up from the tomb. The analogy is entirely with the re-emergence from being closed in, one by being swallowed and the other by being buried.

Jesus didn't come to cure us of claustrophobia. He came to redeem us from death.

When one has not just multiple points of comparison; but all points of comparison the picture that emerges is inescapable. "Just as Jonah was alive in the whale for three days and three nights so too shall the Son of Man be in the center of the earth three days and three nights" doesn't go very far in supporting a resurrection.

Your parody would be appropriate were we both in agreement that Jonah was buried inside the whale and his corpse was revived on his ejection.

I'm only illustrating what you're claiming. if we both agreed that Jesus was in the tomb alive for three days, then neither one of us would believe that he was resurrected from the dead. If we both believe that he was dead in the tomb just as Jonah was in the fish, then it stands to reason that Jonah was dead. The only way my "parody" makes sense is by the fact that this is precisely what you're claiming, i.e. that he's not dead. I'm simply showing that this is one glaring point of reference that diverges from the death/resurrection comparison.

It is you who need Jonah to be dead for your interpretation of the analogy; I don't.

Just as Jonah was dead, so to Jesus was dead. Makes sense to me. It doesn't have to be that way , it just doesn't make sense to say that Just as Jonah was alive, in the same way Jesus was dead. I don't have to believe that squares cannot be circles, but it sure makes it easier to draw a square when it has four equidistant corners.

Attic Greek was somewhat nuanced.

Yes - the point I was making is not whether this or that interpretation is correct but that the examination of Christ's reported words relies on the exact format of Christ's speech to have been properly recorded, years after the event.

Most people forget that they didn't have 597 channels of cable narcotics back then. Stories were passed around and if anyone did what you just did with "I will destroy this temple..etc" someone just as alert as I am would have jumped in to correct them. To claim that the story may have been corrupted when the story is coherent doesn't sound like much of an argument. If it was ambiguous or confusing you might have a point.

We have the same problem with his words on the cross: I say - today you will be with me in Paradise and I say today, you will be with me in Paradise.

Good topic for another thread.

All that aside, it seems you've been seduced into accepting poor Jonah died in the whale, making Matthew's comparison more literal than figurative. I have read the account and do not see how you can come to this conclusion.

Well, it doesn't take much imagination. I can see it both ways. I just happen to think that when all points of reference indicate that both Jonah and Jesus were dead, then it reinforces the fact that Jesus was dead. A doctrine or argument that claims that Jesus didn't have to die to accomplish his mission would fit perfectly into your argument. To come to the conclusion that it indicates that he was dead isn't going to win that argument. I don't see it as being that effective with this one either.

[marco]

Yep, that sounds about right. I'm not saying that Jonah or Jesus were just euphemistically drowsy while they were passed out.

"out of the belly of hell cried I,..." This word "hell" is the Hebrew word "Sheol" which is "the grave". The usage of this term doesn't lend itself to a place where people lay in repose and compose poems

But compose he did! Were I seated in the darkness of a whale's belly I would also describe my surroundings and my lot as HELL.

"O Lord my God, my senses fail
For here inside this monstrous whale
I know with Jonah all's not well;
This place I'm in is just like hell.
So if you can, O Lord on high,
Forgive my sin and hear my cry."

No sooner did God her this shout
Than he commanded: Spit him out!

(With apologies to Jonah for this lesser litany.) You see, it is very unusual for munched-up corpses to feel anything, far less beg the Lord for help. We are told wisely that the dead feel nothing and it might have been added that they pray no prayers. Jonah was in hell, all right, but this time a metaphor is being used.

Your quotes, into which you inject literal (and misplaced) truth, are poetic descriptions of his surroundings. Let us remember that we are in the fantasy world of a whale's tummy, the whale being an emissary from the Almighty; so being legalistic over the interpretation is gilding the lily.

Jesus didn't come to cure us of claustrophobia. He came to redeem us from death.

If we use claustrophobia in the right figurative sense then indeed Jesus came to break us free of it.

The only way my "parody" makes sense is by the fact that this is precisely what you're claiming, i.e. that he's not dead. I'm simply showing that this is one glaring point of reference that diverges from the death/resurrection comparison.

May I reiterate? Jonah was inside the whale for three days. Jesus was in the tomb for three days. The two are compared figuratively. One would not have expected Jonah to come out alive. One would not have expected Jesus to come out alive. Your demand that Jonah be dead, to make the comparison more literal is your own preoccupation. It suffices that a miracle occurred at the end of three days, in both cases.

In fact I am happy to believe that Jesus was alive for the three days and, like Jonah, emerged alive from seeming death. That is a possibility though not a necessary conclusion.

Most people forget that they didn't have 597 channels of cable narcotics back then. Stories were passed around and if anyone did what you just did with "I will destroy this temple..etc" someone just as alert as I am would have jumped in to correct them. To claim that the story may have been corrupted when the story is coherent doesn't sound like much of an argument. If it was ambiguous or confusing you might have a point.

So coherence is proof against a corrupted text. Amazing. If I am among the monstrous regiment who have daft ideas about 597 channels, it is yet another cross I must bear. I do my best but, clearly, when someone more "alert" strolls along, I am lost. Go well, my friend.

[shnarkle]

Yep, that sounds about right. I'm not saying that Jonah or Jesus were just euphemistically drowsy while they were passed out.

"out of the belly of hell cried I,..." This word "hell" is the Hebrew word "Sheol" which is "the grave". The usage of this term doesn't lend itself to a place where people lay in repose and compose poems

But compose he did! Were I seated in the darkness of a whale's belly I would also describe my surroundings and my lot as HELL.

To whom, pray tell, would you be describing these details to? The whale's belly? The other assorted bits of digesting material sloshing around with you?

You see, it is very unusual for munched-up corpses to feel anything,

Exactly my point. He's dead.

far less beg the Lord for help.

Exactly my point. He's dead. It can only be in his spirit which that culture believes tends to loiter around for up to three days after death has occurred.

We are told wisely that the dead feel nothing and it might have been added that they pray no prayers.

It hardly need be added as this is precisely why we can be assured that he is dead.

Jonah was in hell, all right, but this time a metaphor is being used.

Yes, the belly "IS" his Sheol, i.e. grave. The figure Metaphor is contained exclusively in the verb. The two words on either side must be used literally or no one can know what the author is talking about in the first place. By simply substituting the belly of the fish for "hell" the author is using it as a Symbol. Not of confinement, but what has been substituted. Symbols must, by definition; be a sign for what they are replacing. They cannot just ignore what they are explicitly replacing.

Let us remember that we are in the fantasy world of a whale's tummy, the whale being an emissary from the Almighty; so being legalistic over the interpretation is gilding the lily.

I'm not being legalistic. I'm pointing out their definition of death. The whale is not an emissary. The great fish was getting Israeli prophet take out. Jonah is God's emissary to the people of Nineveh. The great fish has not changed Jonah's attitude toward his mission from God. He has only forced him to do what he has no desire to do in the first place.

Jesus didn't come to cure us of claustrophobia. He came to redeem us from death.

If we use claustrophobia in the right figurative sense then indeed Jesus came to break us free of it.

Figurative speech isn't necessary when literal speech will do, especially when one is literally pointing out that they are going to be dead.

if we're going to play fast and loose with our own interpretation and inject figures into a text when there are none then we can come up with an endless supply of interpretations. There is then no correct or "right" sense. For example:



The fish's belly is an allegory for Jonah's confining perspective on the limitless grace of God, it is also the means by which he must be released from this closed minded perspective. Likewise, Jesus is Himself the one who is confined by His own inability to achieve repentance from Israel so it is his own confinement in a tomb that will release repentance from the world.

We're all sailing along in calm seas and along comes Jesus to rock the boat. He makes us aware of the tossing sea around us so we must toss him overboard in order for him to realize through his own confinement that our repentance can only be achieved when we see that we don't want to go through what he or Jonah went through.

The fish, like the tomb represent us. We need to consume Christ. We are given a free meal just like the fish; this is grace. We are dead and only Christ is alive within us, but death cannot contain (or confine!) life so Jonah and Christ are spit out to bring about repentance. Repentance from what? Confinement.

I could literally as well as figuratively do this all day long...

The only way my "parody" makes sense is by the fact that this is precisely what you're claiming, i.e. that he's not dead. I'm simply showing that this is one glaring point of reference that diverges from the death/resurrection comparison.

May I reiterate? Jonah was inside the whale for three days. Jesus was in the tomb for three days. The two are compared figuratively.

No, we're looking at a literal resemblance, or comparison BY resemblance Not just by the fact that the Hebraism "three days" has been replaced with the literal phrase, "three days and three nights", but by the fact that what we refer to as the figure Simile isn't actually a figure at all as it is simply a clear plain statement as to a resemblance between words or things.

There are numerous examples of false or incongruous Similes in literature, but we don't have that here. We have three complete days and nights in a fish's belly that is explicitly stated to be "Sheol", i.e. "the grave" and three complete days and nights in a tomb. We are not looking at the resemblance of confinement with a tomb. We are explicitly looking at the resemblance between a fish's belly and a tomb.

One would not have expected Jonah to come out alive.

One wouldn't expect Jonah to come out at all, at least not at that end of the fish.

One would not have expected Jesus to come out alive.

No one listening to Jesus did either, but they certainly knew that he couldn't rise from the dead if he wasn't actually dead. The Simile you're presenting would fit much better if Jesus were simply to be incarcerated for three days in a Roman jail cell.

Your demand that Jonah be dead, to make the comparison more literal is your own preoccupation.

Not really, you're the one who is demanding that the resemblance between these two be a figurative comparison of confinement when the fact is that he is plainly stating the resemblance is between being in a fish's belly three days and three nights and a tomb three days and three nights. He isn't speaking of a figurative tomb or figurative fish's belly.

It suffices that a miracle occurred at the end of three days, in both cases.

Not when the goal is victory over death. It would have sufficed to simply walk out of a prison cell after three days to show a victory over confinement. Paul refers to doing this in his letters, and that miracle doesn't come close to what Christ did with his resurrection.

In fact I am happy to believe that Jesus was alive for the three days and, like Jonah, emerged alive from seeming death.

Well, why didn't you say so? We could have saved ourselves a lot of pointless discussion if you had simply pointed out that you didn't believe Jesus was dead in the first place. You do know that I already brought up this point, right? You didn't say anything about it then so I figured you were going to come up with another argument. Regardless, if you believe that Jesus was simply taking a nap for a few days, then I see nothing irregular in your new argument. At least this one is logically consistent.

That is a possibility though not a necessary conclusion.

It's a logically consistent conclusion.

Most people forget that they didn't have 597 channels of cable narcotics back then. Stories were passed around and if anyone did what you just did with "I will destroy this temple..etc" someone just as alert as I am would have jumped in to correct them. To claim that the story may have been corrupted when the story is coherent doesn't sound like much of an argument. If it was ambiguous or confusing you might have a point.

So coherence is proof against a corrupted text. Amazing.

Coherence doesn't suggest a corrupted text, especially when it is coherent within the entire text. Corruptions are usually quite obvious as they tend to differ from other copies, or cause confusion within the text itself. That isn't the case here.

If I am among the monstrous regiment who have daft ideas about 597 channels, it is yet another cross I must bear.

Yet another? Sounds like you're got a messianic complex.

I do my best but, clearly, when someone more "alert" strolls along, I am lost.

When someone more alert comes along, I don't stay lost for long.

Go well, my friend.

Don't get lost my friend. Stay on the path.

[shnarkle]

Whenever the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 is brought up in a “discussion� with 6th day crucifixion folks, they frequently argue that it is a Jewish idiom for counting any part of a day as a whole day. I wonder if anyone has documentation that shows that the phrase “x� days and “x�nights was ever used in the first century or before when it absolutely didn’t include at least parts of the “x� days and at least parts of the “x� nights?

A day is a period of darkness that is followed by a period of light of the same duration. ....The first day in which Jesus was dead, was the 3 hour period of light that followed the three hours of darkness on Thursday,

Jesus died on Thursday? Most people claim that Jesus was crucified on Friday. Wouldn't the three hours of darkness that preceded the three hours of daylight need to be included? If you're going to include those three hours of daylight, you need to include those three hours of darkness as well.

which was the day of preparation to the Passover, the first night was Friday night,

Wouldn't Friday night be the second night, if The previous Thursday was the first night?

the night when the Jews ate their Passover lamb,

They would have reckoned it as Saturday night due to the fact that they reckon the night coming before the days which is what you're describing. Unless you're saying that Jesus actually was crucified on Thursday.

the second day was Friday, the third night was Saturday night, and and the third day was Saturday, and it was sometime in the evening, which was the beginning of Sunday night, that he rose from the grave, and the women who came in the darkness of Sunday morning, found the tomb to be empty.

There are a few problems with this theory. Mark 16:1 states that the women bought spices "after the sabbath" and Luke 23:56 states that they then rested "on the sabbath after they bought spices". This isn't a contradiction, but a clue to what's really going on.

None of these women knew Jesus was going to be crucified until he was practically up on the cross being crucified. Did someone say, "Hey someone needs to go get spices because he'll be dead soon"? Not likely as the common practice was to leave the bodies on the crosses to rot. They had no expectation that Jesus' body would be placed into a tomb in the first place.

[marco]

No, we're looking at a literal resemblance, or comparison BY resemblance Not just by the fact that the Hebraism "three days" has been replaced with the literal phrase, "three days and three nights", but by the fact that what we refer to as the figure Simile isn't actually a figure at all as it is simply a clear plain statement as to a resemblance between words or things.

Then let us honourably disagree. I can see the attraction of making Jonah's situation a mirror image of Christ's for that seems to be a desideratum, especially when some concordance takes place with a supposed prophecy. I can see that God would - though it seems irrational - kill Jonah and raise him to life so that some alert person might notice the amazing parallel with the resurrection of Jesus. In calling the whale's belly hell, we can parallel Christ's descent into hell.

I find the Jonah tale rather foolish. The appearance of a whale that kills Jonah and then regurgitates him, alive, is hard to "swallow", but then so is the resurrection. Thus we have another amazing parallel between the two situations - both strain credibility to breaking point.

To retain a modicum of rationality I prefer to think that Jonah sat in the whale's stomach lamenting, and when he was finally seen to be utterly remorseful, he was allowed out. This is no more ridiculous than a whale swallowing him and more plausible, if one can use that word, than having a corpse spat out alive. At no point in the tale are we told Jonah is dead - we use alertness to deduce this. Is it possible to be too alert?

In any event we have both expressed our points of view and I will leave it there. Go well.

[shnarkle]

No, we're looking at a literal resemblance, or comparison BY resemblance Not just by the fact that the Hebraism "three days" has been replaced with the literal phrase, "three days and three nights", but by the fact that what we refer to as the figure Simile isn't actually a figure at all as it is simply a clear plain statement as to a resemblance between words or things.

Then let us honourably disagree. I can see the attraction of making Jonah's situation a mirror image of Christ's for that seems to be a desideratum, especially when some concordance takes place with a supposed prophecy.

Neither here nor there. There is only the text making a resemblance between the two.

I can see that God would - though it seems irrational - kill Jonah and raise him to life so that some alert person might notice the amazing parallel with the resurrection of Jesus.

Yes, quite irrational. The author is simply taking a well know story and drawing a resemblance between the two.

In calling the whale's belly hell, we can parallel Christ's descent into hell.

The whale's belly is literally and explicitly referred to as "the grave", and this grave is what is descending. Christ's tomb is simply a tomb. They both resemble places for dead bodies. If you're into movies about vampires or "the undead" then they're both places to hang out for a few days.

I find the Jonah tale rather foolish. The appearance of a whale that kills Jonah and then regurgitates him, alive, is hard to "swallow", but then so is the resurrection.

This tends to be a problem for those who are unable to view these stories as anything other than literal histories. These mythologies were never meant to be viewed as historical narratives. They offer so much more when one is able to free themselves from this myopic straightjacket of some 2,000 year old news story. I'm not suggesting that people need to stop looking at these stories from some cramped "fundamental" perspective, just to try looking at the literary devices, the themes, the subplots, etc. these authors have graciously employed for our benefit as well as our entertainment.

Thus we have another amazing parallel between the two situations - both strain credibility to breaking point.

You may very well be on the verge of breaking free of the bondage of credulity and being able to see what these stories are actually portraying.

To retain a modicum of rationality I prefer to think that Jonah sat in the whale's stomach lamenting, and when he was finally seen to be utterly remorseful, he was allowed out.

The verbs are in the past tense indicating that these are his recollections rather than events that happened while he was in the belly of the fish. Neither the whale, the whale's belly, nor God cares about Jonah's remorse. This story is a farce, a comedy. He is being belched upon the shores by a fish that is the god of the Ninevites covered in stomach acid. A present from their god? The offspring of their god?

No matter to Jonah as he isn't looking to win a popularity contest here, nor is he concerned with his appearance either, nor the stench that emanates and pervades from his sour disposition. He doesn't care if they recoil from him in disgust. He only wants them to reject God's message, or at the very least put him out of his misery.

Admittedly, he is a bit repentant, but it's short lived. Despite all of this, they repent, and not just the people but the livestock as well. C,mon, you can't see how hilarious this is? Just try to imagine a bunch of cattle, sheep, goats, and swine covering themselves in sackcloth and ashes repenting for all the horrid things that they've done.

This is no more ridiculous than a whale swallowing him and more plausible, if one can use that word, than having a corpse spat out alive.

I'm inclined to agree perhaps for the sake of comedic effect. It makes more sense to me for him to be puked onto the sands of Nineveh a dead motionless slimy partially digested and soon to be extremely grumpy reluctant prophet. I don't think this reduces the comedic character while simultaneously strengthening the poignancy of the utter disgust and sadness that must be written large across Jonah's face. For such a short story, it packs a big punch. I'm surprised it hasn't been made into a feature length Monty Python style movie.

At no point in the tale are we told Jonah is dead

Are we told that the belly of giant fish are habitable places to live for days on end? Are we told that Jonah grew gills? Is this some sort of primitive submarine? Perhaps Occam's razor might be the best explanation. Perhaps he was in some sort of coma, suspended animation? We are told that his soul has fainted wrapped in seaweed in "the grave" "to corruption" "forever". If killing time can injure eternity, then a soul will very likely faint at the sight of its own dead body.

- we use alertness to deduce this. Is it possible to be too alert?

Yes, and it's a good thing that methamphetamine addicts aren't into reading ancient texts.

[marco]

[quote="shnarkle"]

You take a protean view of biblical tales, adjusting when adjustment suits. Today it might be all literal and tomorrow we want symbol; yesterday it was deadly serious and now it is comedic. We can dismiss Jonah as a joke while taking the resurrection as eternal truth; the terms of the joke-tale must be taken in their precise meaning with due attention to tense, else the joke is spoiled. Quite.

We can certainly raise rubbish art to the status of Michelangelo with some wise observations. And we can take Matthew and make more of his skill than Matthew ever knew about. Jonah was in the whale; Christ was in the tomb. Both got out. That is all ye know on earth and all ye need to know.

Great discussion. Go well.