Strongest, most direct evidence to doubt the Resurrection?

[Bernard Muller]

All the narratives (4 gospels and Paul) narrate a third day resurrection

Mark's gospel does not have Jesus predicting he will resurrect on the third day.

Mark 9:31 is specific "after three days" means from the time Jesus is killed:
for he was teaching his disciples, saying to them, "The Son of man will be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him; and when he is killed, after three days he will rise."

Why needlessly preserve the term "after" if it presented such an obvious conflict?

There are words in ancient Greek which are a lot more appropriate than 'meta' for meaning "with", "in" or "within" (but not "after"): examples: 'ἐν' & 'διά'. So why use 'meta' if "within" is meant? Furthermore "Mark" consistently used 'meta' meaning "after" for any action happening after another one or a certain amount of time. I already provided the verses # in an earlier post (reminder: Mk 1:14, 9:2, 13:24, 14:28, 14:70, 16:2).

If Matthew was making up this story about the guards being posted only for three days (ie. not being posted for "after three days"), then he could just as easily have instead alter the text into saying that the pharisees heard Jesus say that the resurrection would be in three days.

Even if Jesus' death in gMatthew lasts about 40 hours, in Mt 12:40 Jesus is predicting to be dead for three days and three nights. So if "Matthew" was not accurate about his math on the duration of Jesus' death, "Mark", or rather the interpolator of the empty tomb, could have done the same.
BTW, the author of the empty tomb in gMark did not give any indication when Jesus would have resurrected (within the about 40 hours, before the tomb was found empty) and therefore that Jesus was right about his predictions. He could not care less about these "three days".

Cordially, Bernard

[rakovsky]

Bernard,

Luke 24:21: "But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done."

If Sunday was the third day "since" they were done, then Saturday would be the second day since they were done and Friday would be the first day "since they were done". But that would not make sense if we strictly used our modern English way of talking about time. Sunday was the third day "since/after/with/of" the Passion based on their style of reckoning.

Besides, Mark 14:58, talking about Jesus' resurrection using the figure of the temple, in a verse that is not in the Mark 16 later addition, says: "within (dia) three days I will build another made without hands."
Naturally, we should understand the author in harmony with himself. http://biblehub.com/text/mark/14-58.htm

We are dealing with a different way of counting time in the Bible than we do today. I mean, the fact that the 24 hour "day" started as a sunset is totally foreign to us outside of Jewish and other religious reckoning handed down. And then you have the way that "part of a day" was counted as a full day (ie a day and a night) according to the Talmud.

Your position is that the Old Testament must be wrong and the king's statement must be an interpolation. But that's unnecessary. The king said to come back after three days, and they came on the third day. So what if they came to the king a day early? It doesn't make the people bad, so there is no embarrassing need to censor the text with an interpolation. And why do you think that it's an interpolation in the first place, or if it is, that it must be wrong? Because, it seems, you are relying apriori on your pre-existing belief that "after three days" must be meant by the ancient Jews in common speech strictly as we use it today, and not rather in some less precise colloquial way.

There are Christian groups that actually do make a big deal out of this "after" three days issue, and so they relocate the Passion or the Resurrection to a different day of the week to accommodate the supposed problem, based on the idea that the "Sabbath" could theoretically refer to Saturday or to a holiday, in this case the Passover. I just think that it's making too big a deal out of a word for time reckoning that is used to mean something else elsewhere (back in the Old Testament).

Or you can calculate it this way:
Thursday night - Friday day = 1st night-day cycle
Friday earth went dark - Friday light returned = 2nd night day cycle
Friday night - Saturday day = 3rd night-day cycle
Saturday night passes and Jesus rises with the dawn on Sunday

If we could say that Mark definitely intended to predict and then did narrate the resurrection for Monday, this could be an interesting issue. Maybe it would mean that he got his days mixed up. But instead, we are left with debating the word "after/since/with" and whether it should be taken out of its meaning elsewhere to contradict the narrative that all the gospels (including the original Mark 16 before the added verses of 9-20) give about the resurrection being on Sunday, not to mention Mark's own interchanging use of the word "after" and "in" (Mark 14:58).

[arnoldo]

Basically, in understanding literature you need to look for harmonization, and it's only when harmonization can't happen that you are stuck with a contradiction. If there is a real way to reasonably or arguably interpret the text, then it's not a fatal flaw.

If there were 100% harmonization in these accounts would it prove anything? It may seem counterintuitive, but Anthony Le Donne has an interesting hypothesis that these apparent discrepancies are valuable to interpret the text, rendering it not a fatal flaw.

I agree. It is normal for people's accounts of past experiences to differ in some ways or to have small mistakes or unclear areas. If everything was 100% perfect, it would suggest more editing with the text to "correct" it.

Agreed, which brings to mind why these different accounts weren't redacted at the hand of a scribe so long ago. . .which led to Augustine having to give an account for these discrepancies in The Harmony of the Gospels, Book III.

Chapter 25. Of Christ's Subsequent Manifestations of Himself to the Disciples, and of the Question Whether a Thorough Harmony Can Be Established Between the Different Narratives When the Notices Given by the Four Several Evangelists, as Well as Those Presented by the Apostle Paul and in the Acts of the Apostles, are Compared Together.

[Bernard Muller]

We are dealing with a different way of counting time in the Bible than we do today. I mean, the fact that the 24 hour "day" started as a sunset is totally foreign to us outside of Jewish and other religious reckoning handed down. And then you have the way that "part of a day" was counted as a full day (ie a day and a night) according to the Talmud.

I indicated 13 examples in http://historical-jesus.info/77.html showing the way ancients were counting days was the same as today:

1) Evidence about "after three days" is the fourth day and "the third day" is "after two days":
A) The fourth day (and NOT the third) immediately follows a period of three days, according to ancient customs:
a) Jdg 19:4-5a "Now his father-in-law, the young woman's father, detained him; and he stayed with him three days. So they ate and drank and lodged there.
Then it came to pass on the fourth day that they arose early in the morning, and he stood to depart ..."
b) 2 Ch 20:25b-26a "... and they were three days gathering the spoil because there was so much.
And on the fourth day they assembled in the Valley of Berachah, ..."
c) Josephus' Wars, V, VIII, 2 "Thus did they valiantly defend themselves for three days; but on the fourth day they could not support themselves against the vehement assaults of Titus"
d) Josephus' Ant., IX, I, 3 "He also gave his army leave to take the prey of the enemy's camp, and to spoil their dead bodies; and indeed so they did for three days together, till they were weary, so great was the number of the slain; and on the fourth day, all the people were gathered together unto a certain hollow place or valley, and blessed God for his power and assistance ..."

B) And the third day is the next one after two (NOT three) days (as the seventh day follows six days):
a) 2 Sa 1:1-2a YNG "And it cometh to pass, after the death of Saul, that David hath returned from smiting the Amalekite, and David dwelleth in Ziklag two days,
and it cometh to pass, on the third day, that lo, a man hath come in out of the camp from Saul ..."
b) Ex 16:26 "Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, there will be none."
c) Ex 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day."
d) Lev 23:3 "Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day [is] a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work"
e) Jos 6:3-4 "... you shall go all around the city once. This you shall do six days. ... But the seventh day you shall march around the city seven times"
...
f) Josephus' Wars, II, XIX, 7 "There it was that Cestius staid two days, and was in great distress to know what he should do in these circumstances; but when on the third day he saw a still much greater number of enemies, and all the parts round about him full of Jews, he understood that his delay was to his own detriment ..."
g) Josephus' Wars, III, VIII, 1 "Thus he concealed himself two days; but on the third day, when they had taken a woman who had been with them, he was discovered."
h) Josephus' Wars, IV, VIII, 1 "... Cesarea to Antipatris, where he spent two days in settling the affairs of that city, and then, on the third day, he marched on, laying waste and burning all the neighboring villages."
i) Josephus' Ant., I, XIII, 2 "Now the two servants went along with him two days; but on the third day, as soon as he saw the mountain, he left those servants that were with him till then in the plain, and, having his son alone with him, he came to the mountain."

Besides, Mark 14:58, talking about Jesus' resurrection using the figure of the temple, in a verse that is not in the Mark 16 later addition, says: "within (dia) three days I will build another made without hands."

Yes, but when "Mark" had Jesus predicting his resurrection "after three days", he did not use 'dia'. Furthermore I do not see why Jesus' alleged claim about rebuilding the temple "within three days" has to match exactly the predicted duration of Jesus' death: "after three days".

Your position is that the Old Testament must be wrong and the king's statement must be an interpolation. But that's unnecessary. The king said to come back after three days, and they came on the third day. So what if they came to the king a day early? It doesn't make the people bad, so there is no embarrassing need to censor the text with an interpolation. And why do you think that it's an interpolation in the first place, or if it is, that it must be wrong? Because, it seems, you are relying apriori on your pre-existing belief that "after three days" must be meant by the ancient Jews in common speech strictly as we use it today, and not rather in some less precise colloquial way.

Actually, looking at:
After the king (Rehoboam) says "Depart for three days, then come back to me." (12:5c)
we have
1 Ki 12:12 "So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day," (12:12)

It makes sense that the people reassemble on the third day, in case the king would make his proclamation at the very beginning of the the fourth day (after three days), so they won't miss it (however, an interpolator, adding up the very awkward, erroneous and unnecessary "as the king had directed, saying, "Come back to me the third day."" thought some correction was necessary).
To conclude, I do not think that 1 Ki 12:5, 12:12 (and parallel verses in 2 Chrononicles) can be used to indicate some ancient writers may have considered "after three days" compatible with "on the third day".

Cordially, Bernard

[rakovsky]

Bernard,

Here is another solution to your question:

The GPeter has a different chronological scheme from the standard and traditional Friday-crucifixion and Sunday-morning-resurrection scheme that most assume from Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. In the GPeter we are told that after Jesus died and was buried his disciples were in hiding and the Peter as narrator declares: “We fasted and sat mourning and weeping night and day until the Sabbath” (7:3). This would indicate that at least a day and a night passed between the crucifixion and burial and the arrival of the Sabbath, impossible with a traditional Good Friday crucifixion. This chronology does make sense if one assumes, as the GPeter has it, that the “Sabbath” immediately following the crucifixion at sundown was not the weekly Saturday but the annual Passover Sabbath of the 1st day of Unleavened Bread (see The Jesus Dynasty, pp. 198-200 for a chart and discussion, plus my recent post here). This fits in well with the gospel of John that says that Jesus was crucified before the Passover Seder, and that the “Sabbath” falling at sunset was a “high day” (John 13:1; 18:28; 19:31). Thus Jesus would have been crucified on a Thursday, not a Friday, buried at sundown, with the Passover “Sabbath” falling on Friday and the weekly Sabbath on Saturday. What one has then is two “Sabbaths” back-to-back.

John 19:31 "The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away."

Do the gospels ever specify that Jesus was crucified on the 6th day of the week (Friday)?

[rakovsky]

We are dealing with a different way of counting time in the Bible than we do today. I mean, the fact that the 24 hour "day" started as a sunset is totally foreign to us outside of Jewish and other religious reckoning handed down. And then you have the way that "part of a day" was counted as a full day (ie a day and a night) according to the Talmud.

I indicated 13 examples in http://historical-jesus.info/77.html showing the way ancients were counting days was the same as today:

1) Evidence about "after three days" is the fourth day and "the third day" is "after two days":
A) The fourth day (and NOT the third) immediately follows a period of three days, according to ancient customs:
a) Jdg 19:4-5a "Now his father-in-law, the young woman's father, detained him; and he stayed with him three days. So they ate and drank and lodged there.
Then it came to pass on the fourth day that they arose early in the morning, and he stood to depart ..."
b) 2 Ch 20:25b-26a "... and they were three days gathering the spoil because there was so much.
And on the fourth day they assembled in the Valley of Berachah, ..."
c) Josephus' Wars, V, VIII, 2 "Thus did they valiantly defend themselves for three days; but on the fourth day they could not support themselves against the vehement assaults of Titus"
d) Josephus' Ant., IX, I, 3 "He also gave his army leave to take the prey of the enemy's camp, and to spoil their dead bodies; and indeed so they did for three days together, till they were weary, so great was the number of the slain; and on the fourth day, all the people were gathered together unto a certain hollow place or valley, and blessed God for his power and assistance ..."

B) And the third day is the next one after two (NOT three) days (as the seventh day follows six days):
a) 2 Sa 1:1-2a YNG "And it cometh to pass, after the death of Saul, that David hath returned from smiting the Amalekite, and David dwelleth in Ziklag two days,
and it cometh to pass, on the third day, that lo, a man hath come in out of the camp from Saul ..."
b) Ex 16:26 "Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, there will be none."
c) Ex 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day."
d) Lev 23:3 "Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day [is] a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work"
e) Jos 6:3-4 "... you shall go all around the city once. This you shall do six days. ... But the seventh day you shall march around the city seven times"
...
f) Josephus' Wars, II, XIX, 7 "There it was that Cestius staid two days, and was in great distress to know what he should do in these circumstances; but when on the third day he saw a still much greater number of enemies, and all the parts round about him full of Jews, he understood that his delay was to his own detriment ..."
g) Josephus' Wars, III, VIII, 1 "Thus he concealed himself two days; but on the third day, when they had taken a woman who had been with them, he was discovered."
h) Josephus' Wars, IV, VIII, 1 "... Cesarea to Antipatris, where he spent two days in settling the affairs of that city, and then, on the third day, he marched on, laying waste and burning all the neighboring villages."
i) Josephus' Ant., I, XIII, 2 "Now the two servants went along with him two days; but on the third day, as soon as he saw the mountain, he left those servants that were with him till then in the plain, and, having his son alone with him, he came to the mountain."

None of these sentences uses the word "after".
They just say something happened for three days and on the fourth day. Obviously a count must go third day, then fourth day. This doesn't contradict that when they said "Come after/with three days" they could mean "on the third day." This doesn't contradict that when they said "Come after/with three days" they could mean "on the third day" when they do not use the same manner of speech as we do today.

[rakovsky]

Besides, Mark 14:58, talking about Jesus' resurrection using the figure of the temple, in a verse that is not in the Mark 16 later addition, says: "within (dia) three days I will build another made without hands."

Yes, but when "Mark" had Jesus predicting his resurrection "after three days", he did not use 'dia'. Furthermore I do not see why Jesus' alleged claim about rebuilding the temple "within three days" has to match exactly the predicted duration of Jesus' death: "after three days".

What is difficult to understand?
Jesus' claim about rebuilding the temple "not made with hands" (His body) "within three days" has to match exactly the predicted duration of Jesus' death ("after three days He would rise") because Jesus was talking about the same thing - the resurrection of His body.
What is hard to understand? To understand literature you try to understand the author's intent and to harmonize an author with himself where reasonable.

Your position is that the Old Testament must be wrong and the king's statement must be an interpolation. But that's unnecessary. The king said to come back after three days, and they came on the third day. So what if they came to the king a day early? It doesn't make the people bad, so there is no embarrassing need to censor the text with an interpolation. And why do you think that it's an interpolation in the first place, or if it is, that it must be wrong? Because, it seems, you are relying apriori on your pre-existing belief that "after three days" must be meant by the ancient Jews in common speech strictly as we use it today, and not rather in some less precise colloquial way.

Actually, looking at:
After the king (Rehoboam) says "Depart for three days, then come back to me." (12:5c)
we have
1 Ki 12:12 "So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day," (12:12)

It makes sense that the people reassemble on the third day, in case the king would make his proclamation at the very beginning of the the fourth day (after three days), so they won't miss it (however, an interpolator, adding up the very awkward, erroneous and unnecessary "as the king had directed, saying, "Come back to me the third day."" thought some correction was necessary).
To conclude, I do not think that 1 Ki 12:5, 12:12 (and parallel verses in 2 Chrononicles) can be used to indicate some ancient writers may have considered "after three days" compatible with "on the third day".

Sure, it makes sense that if the people thought he meant to come on the fourth day when he said "after three days", then they could assemble on the third day to be ready for the speech. Likewise, theoretically, if the scribe thought the Tanakh originally made a mistake he "could" make an interpolation, but making interpolation your conclusion based on a perception that returning "after three days" is not coming back "the third day" is circular reasoning, that its, this is what is under question in the first place.

So in conclusion:
(1) There are multiple reasons why Mark's and Matthew's references to a resurrection "after/with (meta) three days" could be read as including "on the third day". It's apparently used that way once in the Old Testament, although it *could* be an interpolation; "Meta" means not only "after", but also "with" and has been used that way frequently, including to discuss events and actions; Mark himself elsewhere considers the resurrection to be on the third day; all the actual detailed narratives of the gospel appear to place it on the third day; if the gospel writers had been making things up they could have corrected what would have been such a stark error of speech; they had different ways of talking about and counting time in colloquial speech as the Talmud's reference to a part of a day being counted as a full day shows; even Luke 24 in another context has the travelers say that the day of Resurrection was the "third day since these events occurred", so it's not as if the later gospel of Luke was trying to censor this meaning.
(2) Even if "after three days" is meant literally as we would normally count it now, there are still two more reasonable explanations: (A) The resurrection was in fact on a predicted fourth "day" because there was an extra night-day cycle during the crucifixion; (B) there were two Sabbath days during this four day period, and the Crucifixion was on a Thursday.

Bernard, perhaps you and I are entrenched in our positions: You think that Mark's reference in a few places to the resurrection being "meta" three days is a crucial contradiction with the gospel narrative that drastically undermines it. I think you are serious about interpreting the gospels as your website shows, I understand your position on the question of "meta three days' and recognize it. Personally, I disagree, because I can think of plenty of reasons why "'meta' three days" could mean "in three days", and because even if it only means "after" in a precise modern sense there are other ways to resolve the issue. This is why I didn't include it in my list in the opening post, even though I already knew about the alleged problem.

So I propose that we move on to other evidence that creates doubt in the resurrection narrative. If we are to discuss " 'meta' three days" more, let's open a new thread for it.

[arnoldo]

In his letter, Paul claims that over a hundred saw Jesus after He resurrected. People at that time had the advantage that they could investigate the stories for themselves. They could go to Galilee or Jerusalem and ask who had seen Jesus after the resurrection. If this was a "mass vision" like people have today on rare occasion of religious figures, I suppose that the Corinthians really could find people who said that they witnessed Jesus after the resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:3-11 was not written by Paul, but much latter by an interpolator:
http://historical-jesus.info/9.html

Cordially, Bernard

Augustine states that this scripture may've been altered at some point.

For the statement which Paul also gives is not in the form, He was seen first of Cephas. But it runs thus: He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: after that He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once. And thus it is not made clear who these twelve were, just as we are not informed who these five hundred were. It is quite possible, indeed, that the twelve here instanced were some unknown twelve belonging to the multitude of the disciples. For now the apostle might speak of those whom the Lord designated apostles, not as the twelve, but as the eleven. Some codices, indeed, contain this very reading. I take that, however, to be an emendation introduced by men who were perplexed by the text, supposing it to refer to those twelve apostles who, by the time when Judas disappeared, were really only eleven. It may be the case, then, that those are the more correct codices which contain the reading eleven; or it may be that Paul intended some other twelve disciples to be understood by that phrase; or, once more, the fact may be that he meant that consecrated number to remain as before, although the circle had been reduced to eleven: for this number twelve, as it was used of the apostles, had so mystical an importance, that, in order to keep the spiritual symbol of the same number, there could be but a single individual, namely, Matthias, elected to fill the place of Judas. But whichever of these several views may be adopted, nothing necessarily results which can appear to be inconsistent with truth, or at variance with any one most trustworthy historian among them.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1602325.htm

[Bernard Muller]

Do the gospels ever specify that Jesus was crucified on the 6th day of the week (Friday)?

Yes, gMark does: Mk 15:42, as also gMatthew (Mt 27:62), as also gLuke (Lk 23:54).

None of these sentences uses the word "after".

What difference does that make: they all indicate that the Nth day occurs right after (N-1) consecutive days have elapsed.

They just say something happened for three days and on the fourth day. Obviously a count must go third day, then fourth day. This doesn't contradict that when they said "Come after/with three days" they could mean "on the third day." This doesn't contradict that when they said "Come after/with three days" they could mean "on the third day" when they do not use the same manner of speech as we do today.

What happened in the (N-1) days is different of what happens in the Nth day in my examples.
"WITH three days" does not make any sense here:
Mar 9:31 "for he was teaching his disciples, saying to them, "The Son of man will be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him; and when he is killed, WITH three days he will rise.".

Why do you insist about that WITH nonsense: gMark always uses 'meta' when introducing an action happening right after another preceding one or an amount of times (specified or not). Why would that be different for Mk 8:31, 9:31 & 10:34?
From RSV:
Mar 1:14
Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God,
Mar 9:2
And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart by themselves; and he was transfigured before them,
Mar 13:24
"But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light,
Mar 14:28
But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee."
Mar 14:70
But again he denied it. And after a little while again the bystanders said to Peter, "Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean."
Mar 16:12
After this he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country.

And 'meta' is never translated as "in" or "within" according to https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... 3326&t=RSV

"Meta" means not only "after", but also "with" and has been used that way frequently, including to discuss events and actions;

Can you provide examples where 'meta', when used for an action relative to another one, has to mean "with" and not "after"?

Mark himself elsewhere considers the resurrection to be on the third day; all the actual detailed narratives of the gospel appear to place it on the third day;

Only in the empty tomb passage.

if the gospel writers had been making things up they could have corrected what would have been such a stark error of speech;

"Matthew" did not correct every occurrences of "after three days", but he also made it worse: he equated these about 40 hours with "three days and "three nights". So the writer of the empty tomb in gMark could have done the same thing: not caring if "after three days" is compatible with 40 consecutive hours.

they had different ways of talking about and counting time in colloquial speech as the Talmud's reference to a part of a day being counted as a full day shows;

Please provide the quotes.

even Luke 24 in another context has the travelers say that the day of Resurrection was the "third day since these events occurred", so it's not as if the later gospel of Luke was trying to censor this meaning.

"Luke" made the correction: the 40th hour can certainly be considered happening on the third day (but not after three days).

(2) Even if "after three days" is meant literally as we would normally count it now, there are still two more reasonable explanations: (A) The resurrection was in fact on a predicted fourth "day" because there was an extra night-day cycle during the crucifixion; (B) there were two Sabbath days during this four day period, and the Crucifixion was on a Thursday.

Two Sabbath days within a four days period! I never heard of that ever happening. Please provide evidence.

What is difficult to understand?
Jesus' claim about rebuilding the temple "not made with hands" (His body) "within three days" has to match exactly the predicted duration of Jesus' death ("after three days He would rise") because Jesus was talking about the same thing - the resurrection of His body.
What is hard to understand? To understand literature you try to understand the author's intent and to harmonize an author with himself where reasonable.

So you know what the author had in mind when he wrote that verse! Good for you. But this "'dia' three days" could just be a way to suggest that Christ could rebuild a temple in a short time (with "three" being a "divine" number very often used in the bible) if he ever destroyed the real temple. Nothing to do with Jesus' death duration. Your understanding is apologetic and your harmonization convenient.
Mark 14: 58 "We heard him say, 'I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.'"
It looks here that "Mark" hinted that heavenly Jesus had something to do about using the Romans to destroy the temple some 40 years later. If it is the case, then the so-called rebuilding would happen in the far future, not through Jesus' crucifixion.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

There are reasons why "Mark" had the resurrection happening "after three days". From http://historical-jesus.info/77.html:

But then, why "after three days", rather than the more appropriate "on the third day", as "corrected" in GMatthew (Mt 16:21, 17:23, 20:19) and GLuke (Lk 9:22, 13:32, 18:33, 24:7)?
It appears that more than three days of death before becoming alive again is required for a (true) resurrection:
Jn 11:23-25a "Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again [but Martha thinks that will happen later, and not now from Jesus]." Martha said to Him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day". [but Jesus is intent to demonstrate he can perform resurrection!] Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life [which he proves next, in the case of Lazarus!]."
Jn 11:39 ""But, Lord," said Martha, the sister of the dead man [Lazarus], "by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there [in the tomb. For Jews, it is the custom to bury soon after death, usually the same day] four days""
Jn 12:17 "... he called Lazarus from the tomb and raised him from the dead ..."
Let's note, that according to:
Jn 12:6-7 "So, when He heard that he was sick, He stayed two more days in the place where He was Then after this He said to the disciples, "Let us go to Judea again.""
Jesus delays inexplicably his return, preventing him to resurrect Lazarus some two to three days after death!
After three days, it seems the body is considered irremediably corrupted and beyond a mere revival. So getting alive after being dead more than three days is an act of God!
Jn 11:4 "When Jesus heard that, He said, "This sickness [of Lazarus] is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through it."

Rev 11:11 "But after the three and a half days breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and terror struck those who saw them."

More evidence from later Jewish sources:
a) Midrash Genesis Rabbah 100.7 "Bar Kappara taught: Until three days [after death] the soul keeps on returning to the grave, thinking that it will go back [into the body]; but when it sees that the facial features have become disfigured, it departs and abandons it [the body]. Thus it says, `But his flesh grieveth for him, and his soul mourneth over him' [Job14:22]"
b) Midrash Leviticus Rabbah 18:1 "For three days [after death] the soul hovers over the body, intending to re-enter it, but as soon as it sees its appearance change, it departs, as it is written, `When his flesh that is on him is distorted, his soul will mourn over him.' [Job14:22]"

Cordially, Bernard